Red tape could cause issues though ... Black tape ? I dunno

Then you know it was intentional and the camera served its purpose.

Just put a toilet, no doors ... And also add this camera, who needs privacy ?

If it was streamed it could be hijacked, now you have to be careful about potential implications, about floating I do not know.

It could be made a requirement to have three people so in case of a fight you have 2 people vs 1. But it will be quite expensive.

No you are speculating, we can't tell what the copilot was exactly doing nor if he was showing signs of craziness nor if we fell asleep nor if he fell unconscious.

Yes totally agree with your points.

You made the mistake again, there is no destruction of evidence but destruction of possible evidence. This is terrible wording. Although I get your point: it obviously look like she was hiding something, but careful with wording and logic ...

It is negligible because it is spread across a large number of people, the argument still stands that you pay for fraudsters.

Read and educate yourself, you are the one without facts here.

About why Barclays was pushing the submissions lower:

Source

About what index is used for variable mortgages (*hint* it is not LIBOR):

What is the Bank of England Rate

Link

The comment I replied to is just a random mix of poorly used facts to bash against banking without understanding and jumping from imprecise facts to incorrect conclusions.

Ah I see what you mean, it is still wrong but in a different way ... You have to pay for insurance premium, if frauds increases the premium is higher. On pure expectations the premiums of insurance are higher than if you were bearing the cost, the insurance offsets risks by pooling risk together and charging a small premium.

The saddest part is how he got modded up. Shows the ability of some people to follow a conversation. It wouldn't be so sad if he wasn't talking about politics. Sometimes I wonder if this kind of person deserve to express their opinion.

So what's your point ? Are you saying it is okay ? You are really weird and amoral.

LIBOR is set by the LIBOR panel. The central bank is actually deciding of the central bank rate and this is not directly influenced by LIBOR. Banks will set the spread to charge you. What you said above in point 1) is quite wrong. As someone else pointed out, during the crisis the banks were manipulating LIBOR down not up. I think you should get a bit more information before to talk about stuff you do not understand.

You seem to think that the big guy always win: in the U.S. it may be more true. But you forgot a big factor here: nobody will go in court to enforce such an agreement pointlessly: if you go to the court over a warehouse worker, and the jury goes against you because they find the agreement abusive, then you set a precedent which will weaken your position the next time you need to enfore such an agreement.

Therfore contrarily to what you said the small guy with a lesser job has actually not much to be scared of in reality.